Social Scientific Nuclear Waste Risk Assessment in the Barents Region

(1)

Northern Studies Working Paper cerum, Centre for Regional Science

Social Scientific Nuclear Waste Risk

Assessment in the Barents Region

Guenrietta V. Arkhanguelskaia

Irina A. Zykova

St. Petersburg Institute of Radiation Hygiene,

Russian Federation

(2)

(3)

Umeå University

cerum,

Centre for Regional

Science

cerum Northern Studies Working Paper no. 20 isbn 91-7305-104-7

issn 1400-1969

Address: Cerum, Umeå University, se-901 87 Umeå, Sweden Telephone: +46-90-786.6079, Fax: +46-90-786.5121

www.umu.se/cerum

Social Scientific Nuclear Waste

Risk Assessment in the Barents

Region

Guenrietta V. Arkhanguelskaia

Irina A. Zykova

St. Petersburg Institute of Radiation Hygiene,

Russian Federation

(4)

(5)

The Project “Nuclear Problems, Risk

Perceptions of, and Societal Responses to,

Nuclear Waste in the Barents Region”

- an Acknowledgement

Since the late eighties, CERUM has developed research with a focus on the shaping of and development within the Barents Region. Two specific features have characterised this research. First of all our ambi-tion has been to develop research projects in close collaboraambi-tion with international and especially Russian researchers. This has materialised as an exchange of researchers at conferences both in Sweden and in Russia. Secondly, our view has been that the Barents region must be analysed by researchers that represent a broad set of competences. Especially our ambition is to develop a deeper and more integrated collaboration between researchers from social sciences and arts on one hand and natural sciences on the other.

With the Swedish Board for Civil Emergency Preparedness (ÖCB) as the main finacier, CERUM has for a couple of years developed re-search within the project “Nuclear Problems, Risks Perceptions of, and Social Responses to, Nuclear Waste in the Barents Region”.

This report is produced within the afore-mentioned project. The project deals with vulnerability as a response to the latent security ques-tions associated with the existence of nuclear power and nuclear waste in the Barents region. Clearly there is within the project a large scoop for an analysis with its roots in natural sciences of the size and disper-sion of various types of waste from the region. The project also has pro-duced a set of such papers. Those papers raise questions that immedi-ately lead to other papers and a discussion with its roots in social sci-ences, of civil emergency preparedness in a broad and spatially delim-ited sense as well as a discussion of the need for an enlarged concept of safety. The pattern of spatial risk dispersion, which in this case not halts at the national borders, and the associated construction of governance in the Barents region also imply that trans-border negotiation, conflict, and cooperation become key words in the discourse.

Gösta Weissglas Lars Westin

(8)

(9)

A. The Purpose and Objectives of Study

Risk perception is a very significant part of personal safety behaviour. The people perceived involuntary risk as more negative emotion then voluntary risk, and such situation is independent of real risk level. The social item of studies of the worry, trouble and stress in population is the study of the reasons of these processes and the study of the number and kind of persons with these status in population.

Mass-media information and the level of special knowledge deter-mine the population radiation risk perception and radiation risk assess-ment as radiation is not a tangible factor. Many scientists consider the risk communication as the main societal mechanism of population ra-diation risk perception.

The success of any Ecological Program is tightly connected with ac-tive participation of population involved. This situation includes the public active position of life and public risk perception, which must be in accordance with real risk situation.

The aim of the study was to work out a long term strategy in

radioac-tive waste safety and management on the base of social core groups in-teraction.

Basic study included: 1) questioning study of core groups; 2) con-tent-analysis of news-paper’s radioecological publications; 3) informa-tion and seminar work for core-groups in Kola Peninsula region. Basic place of the study in Kola Peninsula was Murmansk; control place of the study was St.Petersburg.

The objectives for the survey:

1. risk perception on nuclear waste in comparison with other danger study;

2. mass-media information on radiation ecological problems;

3. sources of information on radiation contamination and trust of them;

4. self-rated knowledge of radiation; 5. respondent’s vital position.

For this study we have chosen the “core” groups, which are not only reflect the public opinion, but can and must teach and inform the gen-eral population about ecological situation and attitude to it. There are: specialists in radiation safety, school teachers, university students, jour-nalists. So, the following groups of respondents took part in this study (table 1):

1. The specialists of radiation safety and nuclear waste management – pilot-study – 1998 in St-Petersburg

Reasons:

a) they know technology but not always estimate ecology problem adequately

(10)

c) this study was made only in St-Petersburg because of difficulties for contact with specialists in Murmansk.

The study was based on convenience sample of participants of scientific conference “Ecological problems of North-West region of Russia”, the section “Handling and burying of radioactive wastes”. The conference was held in July 1998 in St.Petersburg, Russia.

The special attention was paid for group of “specialists” as they can rate the effectiveness of the main directions of financial expend-iture after Chernobyl accident.

2. The first-grade university students – future school teachers of ecology and biology (Murmansk) and future engineers-ecologists (St.Peters-burg); about 200 persons (table 1, group 1 and 4).

The reasons for choose:

a) their opinion reflects the opinion of population in total (people without special education);

b) it is gomogenouse group.

We planned to question 100 students of first year education in each city. But the number of them in Murmansk was only 70. So we ought to include in study elder students, which became separate group of respondents.

3. The school teachers of ecology and biology in Murmansk and in St-Petersburg (groups 3, 4)

The reasons for choose:

a) one of the “core” group in population because of their influence on population opinion like teachers;

b) their profession is the ecological education of children and – through them – their parents.

We include the teachers from Postgraduate Teacher’s Universi-ties, which educated in March 1999 in both cities.

4. The journalists in Murmansk (about 50 persons, group 6 in table 1) The reasons for choose:

a) their profession is to be the mediators of the ecological informa-tion to populainforma-tion;

b) they are one of the “core” group in population.

We given questionnaires to journalists from 3 newspapers of Murmansk.

The number of questionnaires which have been given an number of returned and used questionnaires are presented in table 1.

(11)

Group Groups of: Questionnaires given returned

1 Students of the 1 year of education (Murmansk) 80 73 2 Students of the 4 year of education (Murmansk) 70 68

3 Schoolteachers in ecology (Murmansk) 110 104

4 Schoolteachers in ecology (SPb) 115 112

5 Students of the 1 year of education (SPb) 110 103

6 Journalists (Murmansk) 60 56

7 Specialists (Russia) 60 54

In total Russia 605 570

(12)

(13)

B. The Structure of the Report

The project work was executed in 3 steps.

+ The first step was executed and presented in 1998 as “Radiation Protection Knowledge by the Specialists of Radiation Safety and Nuclear Waste Management”.

+ In 1999 the second step of study – basic questioning study- was exe-cuted. It was concerned the assessment if radiation risk by various groups of population, namely students, school teachers of ecology, journalists in two cities – Murmansk and St. Petersburg.

+ The third step devoted the study of radiation ecology publications in local (Murmansk) newspapers as a reflection of Public Opinion about this problem.

The outcome of the project work; the seminar “Public Opinion on Radioecological Situation in Murmansk Region” for local journalists, authorities and schoolteachers was organized in Murmansk, 19 April 2000.

Report consists from 3 parts, outcome and 3 Appendixes. Each part of the report has Conclusion. The last part of Report tries to show the authors’ opinion of possible further study directions.

(14)

(15)

C. Scientific Results of Study

I.Questioning study

Purpose of study

Main item of the questioning was the comparable study of the

ecologi-cal and radiation risk perception by the students-ecologists, school-teachers-ecologists, professionals (Nuclear Waste Managment and Atomic Industry) and journalists in the Barents Region.

Methods

The questionnaire has a title “Radiation Risk Assessment “(Appendix I). It was developed by the authors of the present study on the base of a questionnaire, applied earlier in investigations of evaluation of subjec-tive (5-point scale) radiation risk by population of territories, contami-nated with radioactive fallout after the Chernobyl accident (JSP2 pro-gram, 1992–1995). The authors of this study actively participated in the creation of the questionnaire and conducting investigations with it. It have made possible for them to compare resulting data with the com-bined results of all investigations, performed in 1993–1996 years in the framework of JSP2 international program in the chapter “Conclusion” of report on this fragment of the study.

The questionnaire was reduced in a number of positions adapted to items of this study concerning Barents Region. The questionnaire for professionals was supplemented with questions of their evaluation for legislative and economic aspects of protection of population from Chernobyl accident radiation exposure. All basic requirements imposed upon questionnaire for professionals sociologic investigation have been taken in account in the process of questionnaire drafting. Specialists of the Institute for Sociologic Researches of Russian Academy of Sciences and Center for Psychological Researches of St. Petersburg State Univer-sity have reviewed the questionnaire and approved it.

The names of Questionnaire parts:

Part 1. Let us meet

Part 2. The assessments of danger Part 3. Information of radiation

Part 4. Your vital position (life position, life style)

Part 5. Questions for professionals only: rating of protective meas-ures

(16)

Part 6. Questions for journalists only: sources of information of sub-marine accident in May 1998.

Part 1. “Let us meet”

The basic characteristics of respondents are presented in table 2. Sex (table 2)

The first peculiarity which attracts the attention is a big share of women among the respondents of the first five groups (72–93,5%). But it is typical situation for Russia: the most part of schoolteachers and also of students future schoolteachers – are women.

Opposite situation was being among professionals: the most part of them are men (~ 85%) so far as there are many oppositions for women who work in Atomy Industry.

The equal parts of men were and women among the journalists: this is typical situation for this profession right now.

Age (table 2)

Average ages in groups of students I year of education are almost the same for both cities. A little bit lower average age for students I grade students year in St. Petersburg in comparison with the Murmansk might be connected with lower age of school children: in St. Peters-burg children begin to learn at school since 7 years old, in Murmansk since 8 years old as a rule.

The average ages of both teacher’s groups were similar – 40,96 and 41,66 years old. The average age of journalists were lower then such characteristic of teachers, the average age of professionals were higher. The last characteristic is specific for this group of respondents who were high educated persons, many of whom have had scientific degrees.

Grou

p Respondents Residence Number of res-pondents

Wome

n Averageage questioningPeriod of

1 Students of the 1 year of education Murmansk 73 74.0% 18.55 (1.99) March 1999 2 Students of the 4 year of education Murmansk 68 85.0% 20.73 (1.45) March 1999 3 Schoolteachers in ecology Murmansk 104 92.3% 40.96 (2.64) Oct. 1999 4 Schoolteachers in ecology St.Petersb. 112 93.5% 41.66 (5.32) March 1999 5 Students of the 1 year of education St.Petersb. 103 72.8% 17.27 (0.13) March 1999

6 Journalists Murmansk 56 50.0% 34.48 (4.13) Dec. 1999

7 Specialists Russia 54 14.8% 53.32 (1.20) April 1998

Total Ecologists (students, school

teach-ers), journalists, specialists

Russia 570 74.2% Apr.98–Oct.99

(17)

Family status (table 3)

The family status of all student’s groups were similar. This characteris-tic was the same for both groups of teachers. So three students groups (n. 1, 2, 5) and two teachers groups (n. 3, 4) are comparable on basis of these two characteristics.

Duration of Residence (table 4)

Practically all the respondents are townsmen which live in both cities more 10 years. Only students group of St. Petersburg has big part of inhabitants of other towns of Russia, who have come for high educa-tion to St.Petersburg.

Self-appraisement of live level (table 5)

+ The highest appraisements of the life level belong to students of all three groups (n. 1, 2, 5) and journalists – middle level – 70, 6–82,5% and high level – 1,9–4,4%.

+ Most probably such appraisals are connected with family status of students - they live with parents and do not earn the money right now.

+ The lowest appraisal of life level belong to teachers groups – they estimate it like middle in 36,5 and 50,0% of answers and like low – in 62.5 and 48.4 % of answers.

Groups Characteristics

Married Not married Divorced Widow No children

1 1.4 98.6 0.0 0.0 98.6 2 19.1 76.5 2.9 0.0 97.1 3 73.1 6.7 16.3 3.8 4.8 4 71.0 8.1 16.1 4.8 14.5 5 1.9 98.1 0.0 0.0 99.0 6 57.1 26.8 14.3 1.8 44.6 7 81.5 7.5 11.0 – 11.0

Table 3 Family status (% of respondents).

Groups Duration of residence in cities

< 10 years > 10 years 1 27.4% 72.6% 2 13.2% 86.8% 3 18.3% 80.85% 4 4.8% 90.35% 5 45.6% 54.4% 6 17.9% 82.1% 7 5.6% 94.4%

(18)

+ The 4-th grade students, journalists and professionals gave similar appraisals of life level – 70.6; 71,4; 74.1% of respondents estimated this index like middle and 25.0–25.9% of respondents – like low. + The values of St. Petersburg respondents are slightly higher then in

Murmansk. Especially low values of this index belong to Mur-mansk teachers.

The self-assessment of health (table 6)

The highest values of health status belong to three students’ groups and to journalists – excellently – 2,7–5,8%, well – 32,4–57,5%, satisfac-torily – 35,6–54,4%, badly – 2,9–4,9% of respondents.

The lower values of this index belong to two teachers’ groups and to professionals, including lowest values of this index, which belong to Murmansk teachers.

The low values of health in professionals’ group may be connected with more older age of this respondent group.

Short Summary

1. The students’ and teachers’ groups from two cities – St. Petersburg and Murmansk – are well comparable on the basis of their sex, age, family status and time of city residence.

Groups Self-appraisement of live level

High Middle Low

1 2.7% 76.7% 17.8% 2 4.4% 70.6% 25.0% 3 0.0% 36.5% 62.5% 4 0.0% 50.0% 48.4% 5 1.9% 82.5% 15.5% 6 3.6% 71.4% 25.0% 7 – 74.1% 25.9%

Table 5 Self-appraisement of live level (% of respondents).

Groups The self-assessment of health

Very good Good Satisfy Bad Didn’t think about 1% 2.7% 57.5% 35.6% 4.1% 0.0% 2% 4.4% 32.4% 54.4% 2.9% 5.9% 3% 0.0% 7.7% 77.9% 10.6% 3.8% 4% 1.6% 22.6% 69.4% 3.2% 1.6% 5% 5.8% 45.6% 39.8% 4.9% 3.9% 6% 5.4% 39.3% 46.4% 3.6% 3.6% 7% – 20.3% 75.9% 1.9% 1.9%

(19)

2. The teachers of both groups, especially from Murmansk, assessed their life level and health status lower then all other respondents. 3. The self-estimated of level and health of journalists were higher and

more optimistic then ones of scientists. It might be psychology effect of more younger ages of the journalists.

Part 2. The assessments of danger

Ranking Danger Factor (table 7–14)

Question 2.1. Which factor is more dangerous for you now? Rank 1 – very dangerous, rank 5 – not dangerous.

The list of dangerous factors contained enumerated five indexes: 1. Poor medical care – shortly “medicine”;

2. Lack of the legal defence for people – shortly “law”; 3. Bad economical situation – shortly “economics”;

4. Radioactive contamination of environment, water, foods – shortly “radiation”;

5. Non-radioactive (chemical) pollution of air, water, foods – shortly “ecology”.

Group 1. Students, I year, Murmansk (tables 7, 14)

27,4% of this group respondents stood the ecological factors (non-radioactive and (non-radioactive ones) at the first place. The second place belonged to law – 21,9%. Medicine was placed at 3rd place and the last place was occupied by economics.

The law was put at the second, third, forth and fifth place by almost equal parts of respondents – above 20% at each place.

Danger factor Percentage of responds with given rank (from 1 to 5)

1 2 3 4 5

Poor medical aid 12.3 12.3 39.7 27.4 17.8

Lack of the legal defense for people 9.6 21.9 20.5 19.2 20.5 Financial-economic diffi-culties 19.2 20.5 12.3 23.3 17.8 Radioactive contamination of environment, water, foods 27.4 16.4 13.7 17.8 15.1 Non-radioactive (chemi-cal) pollution of air, water, foods

27.4 24.7 11.0 9.6 26.0

Marked 95.9 95.8 97.2 97.3 97.2

Table 7 Ranking danger factors by students 1 year, Murmansk. Rank 1 – very dangerous, rank 5 – not dangerous).

(20)

So the students (1 group, Murmansk) showed clearly: the ecological pollution was put by them at the first place, poor medical aid – at the third place. Their position to other three factors is not so clear.

Group 2. Students, IV year, Murmansk (tables 8,14)

The first place was occupied by the radioactive contamination (for 27.9% of respondents) and lack of legal defense (for 26.5% of them). The second place was occupied with not radioactive pollution of envi-ronment.

The third place belonged to “medicine” and the fourth place – to “economics”.

The attitude to “law” of this respondents group is not clear: 26,5% of respondents have given the 1st rank and 25,0% of them – the last, 5th

rank for this kind of danger (tables 8, 14).

Group 3. Teachers, Murmansk (tables 9, 14)

29,8% of this group of respondents has given the first rank for “ecol-ogy” and 26,9% of respondents – for “economics”. “Law” was put at the 3rd rank by 35,6% of respondents. 26% of respondents have given the last, 5th_{rank to “radiation” (tables 9, 14).}

Danger factor Percentage of responds with given rank (from 1 to 5)

1 2 3 4 5

Poor medical aid 7.4 16.2 42.6 26.5 19.1

Lack of the legal defense for people 26.5 7.4 14.7 22.1 25.0 Financial-economic difficulties 17.6 17.6 20.6 25.0 16.2 Radioactive contamination of

envi-ronment, water, foods

27.9 19.1 7.4 17.6 20.6

Non-radioactive (chemical) pollu-tion of air, water, foods

20.6 39.7 14.7 8.8 19.1

Marked 100 100 100 100 100

Table 8 Ranking danger factors by students, IV year, Murmansk.

Danger factor Percentage of responds with given rank

1 2 3 4 5

Poor medical aid 12.5 20.2 35.6 15.4 11.5

19.2 22.1 9.6 16.3 26.0

Non-radioactive pollution 29.8 18.3 6.7 13.5 22.1

Marked 95.1 95.2 94.2 94.3 95.2

Total% 100 100 100 100 100

(21)

Group 4. Teachers, St. Petersburg (tables 10,14)

The first rank was given to “radiation” by 27,4% of respondents, by 22,6% of respondents – to “ecology” and by 21% – to economic diffi-culties. So the first places among different dangers was occupied with ecological contamination and economic situation. “Medicine” was put at the third place by 29% of respondents. 21% of respondents put “law” at the 4th_{place and the same number of respondents – at 5}th

place.

Group 5. Students, I year, St. Petersburg (tables 11, 14)

31,1% respondents have given the first rank to “radiation”, 26% of respondents – to “economics”. The last factor received the second rank from 24,3% and the third rank – from 25,2% of respondents. The “medicine” was put on the fourth place by 47,6% of respondents. 37,1% of respondents put “law” on the last place. So the students from St. Petersburg estimated the ecological contamination as a big problem for this city. The “medicine” and “law” were not in bad status in their opinion. This ranking of danger factors were similar to position of 4 and 5 groups of respondents.

1 2 3 4 5

Poor medical aid 14.5 22.6 29.0 16.1 25.8

27.4 9.7 12.9 19.4 11.3

22.6 19.4 17.7 17.7 19.4

Marked 90.3 90.5 91.9 91.9 92

Total% 100 100 100 100 100

Table 10 Ranking danger factors by teachers, St.Petersburg.

1 2 3 4 5

Poor medical aid 12.3 12.3 39.7 27.4 17.8

27.4 16.4 13.7 17.8 15.1

27.4 24.7 11.0 9.6 26.0

Marked 95.9 95.8 97.2 97.3 97.2

Total% 100 100 100 100 100

(22)

Group 6. Journalists, Murmansk. (table 12, 14)

26,8% of respondents put “ecology” at the first place and the same number of respondents – at the last place. 26,8% of respondents put “law” at second place and 23,2% of respondents put “radiation” at the same place. But 41,1% of respondents put “radiation” at the last fifth place. So it permits to think that “law” is more dangerous then “radia-tion” in general in this group. The third rank is occupied with “medi-cine” (41,1% of respondents).

Group 7. Professionals (tables 13, 14)

This group of respondents placed “law” in the first position (37,7%) and “economics” – in the second one (34%). Pollution of environment was assessed by professionals as significantly less dangerous. Non-radi-oactive pollutions were estimated by professionals less dangerous than habitual radiation background. Half of respondents (51%) ranked “radiation” in the last place of five danger factors.

Danger factor Percentage of responds with given rank (from 1 to 5)

1 2 3 4 5

Poor medical aid 14.3 16.1 41.1 25.0 5.4

17.9 23.2 0.0 10.7 41.1

26.8 10.7 10.7 26.8 17.9

Marked 94.7 94.7 94.7 94.7 94.7

Total 100 100 100 100 100

Table 12 Ranking danger factors by journalists, Murmansk.

Danger factor Percentage of responds with given rank (from 1-5)

1 2 3 4 5

Poor medical aid 17.0 18.9 32.0 13.2 18.9

Lack of the legal defense 37.7 20.8 18.9 18.9 3.8

Financial-economic difficulties 34.0 22.6 13.2 22.6 7.5 Radioactive contamination of

11.3 7.5 18.8 11.3 50.9

Non-radioactive pollution 11.31 20.8 15.1 34.0 18.9

Total 100 100 100 100 100

(23)

Short Summary

1. The Murmansk teachers was a most worried “critical” group; they evaluated their life level (table 10) and health status (table 11) less then all other respondents, including their colleagues from

A.Poor medical aid

Rank Percentage of responds with given answer in groups NN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 12.3 7.4 12.5 14.5 10.7 14.3 17.0 II 12.3 16.2 20.2 22.6 10.7 16.1 18.9 III 39.7 42.6 35.6 29.0 10.7 41.1 32.0 IV 27.4 26.5 15.4 16.1 47.6 25.0 13.2 V 17.8 19.1 11.5 25.8 20.4 5.4 18.9

B. Lack of the legal defense for people

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 9.6 26.5 6.7 4.8 15.5 12.5 37.7 II 21.9 7.4 24.0 19.4 17.5 26.8 20.8 III 20.5 14.7 20.2 19.4 17.5 28.6 18.9 IV 19.2 22.1 26.0 21.0 19.4 10.7 18.9 V 20.5 25.0 22.1 21.0 31.1 14.3 3.8 C. Financial-economic difficulties

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 19.2 17.6 26.9 21.0 26.2 23.2 34.0 II 20.5 17.6 10.2 19.4 24.3 17.9 22.6 III 12.3 20.6 22.1 12.9 25.2 14.3 13.2 IV 23.3 25.0 23.1 17.7 8.7 21.4 22.6 V 17.8 16.2 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.1 7.5

D. Radioactive contamination of environment, water, foods

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 27.4 27.9 19.2 27.4 31.1 17.9 11.3 II 16.4 19.1 22.7 9.7 24.3 23.2 7.5 III 13.7 7.4 9.6 12.9 21.4 0.0 18.8 IV 17.8 17.6 16.3 19.4 13.6 10.7 11.3 V 15.1 20.6 26.0 11.3 9.7 41.1 50.9

E. Non-radioactive (chemical) pollution of air, water, foods

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 27.4 20.6 29.8 22.6 16.5 26.8 11.3 II 24.7 39.7 18.3 19.4 23.2 10.7 20.8 III 11.0 14.7 6.7 17.7 25.2 10.7 15.1 IV 9.6 8.8 13.5 17.7 10.7 26.8 34.0 V 26.0 19.1 22.1 19.4 23.3 17.9 18.9

(24)

St.Petersburg. They have put the economical difficulties on the first place in scale of danger factors (table 14C).

2. In general about 30% of respondents of all groups excluding profes-sionals (7 group) have given first rank to ecological danger – includ-ing the radioactive contamination of environment. The profession-als estimated the danger of environment pollution, especially radio-active contamination, lower then danger of all other factors.

3. About 30–40% of respondents in all groups have given 3-rd rank to poor medical aid. The rest danger factors were estimated not so clearly and occupied 2,4,5 places in various order.

4. The grown–up respondents estimated the danger of social factors higher then the student’s groups did.

The assessments of different danger factors (tables 15 – 22)

Question 2.2. How you can assess the level of danger of these factors for your and your family health now?

The 17 factors of risk of different nature are enumerated. They could be classified as:

+ “social” factors (in order nn 1, 2, 12, 13, 14); + “habitual” factors (nn 4, 5, 6, 7, 9);

+ factors which characterized conditions of environment, including ecological ones (nn 15, 16, 17);

+ “radiological” factors (3, 10);

+ “exotic”, which are concern only to a relatively small fraction of society (nn. 8, 11).

The judgements of each danger factor were estimated with 5-point scale:

– 1 – not dangerous, – 2 – a little bit dangerous, – 3 – rather dangerous, – 4 – dangerous, – 5 – very dangerous.

Group 1. Students, 1 year, Murmansk (tables 15, 22)

More high estimates of danger received only ecological and radiologi-cal factors – 3,96–3,77 balls. 31,5% of respondents have given the high-est marks – 5 balls – to the danger of nuclear thigh-ests.

The estimates of social factors have been rather lesser – 3,68–3,14. The habitual factors have been estimated lower – to 2,68 balls, exclud-ing the danger of AID – 3,39 balls. 49,3% respondents have given low-est low-estimates to drugs. It means that the young men did not realize this danger in real life.

Group 2. Students, IV year, Murmansk (tables 16, 22)

The tendency of marks at this group are very similar to the marks of more younger students. In general all estimates are rather higher then

(25)

ones for the respondents of 1 group, especially – for radiological fac-tors. So, 38,2% of elder students have given the highest mark of danger to nuclear tests and 33,8% of respondents – to radiation. The elder stu-dents estimated the economical difficulties more higher (4.01 balls) then more younger students (3,68 balls).

Group 3. Teachers, Murmansk (tables 17, 22)

The estimates of all danger factors are higher then the marks of two groups of students. The tendency of marks are the same: highest marks for “ecological” factors, including radiological ones, the next mark had the “social” factors and the rest ones.

Group 4. Teachers, St. Petersburg (tables 18, 22)

The estimates of danger of ecological factors have been some more higher in 4 group (4,38–4,27 balls) in comparison with groups 1, 2, 3. The estimate of nuclear testes were very high too – 4,34 balls. 50% of respondents of this group have given the highest mark – 5 balls for danger of this factor. The estimates of social and habitual factors in this group were higher then in Murmansk’s groups of respondents – except of estimate of danger of economical difficulties, which were lower then in group of Murmansk teachers.

NN Factors of danger Percentages of responses in a 5-point scale (from 1 – no danger, to 5 – the highest

dan-ger Mean mark X (m) % of answers 1 2 3 4 5 1 Crimes of violence 6.8 11.0 24.7 41.1 11.0 3.41 (0.25) 94.5 2 Military conflicts 6.8 16.4 27.4 27.4 16.4 3.32 (0.28) 94.5

3 Nuclear bomb tests 4.1 9.6 16.4 32.9 31.5 3.83 (0.27) 94.5

4 Transport accidents 4.1 11.0 34.2 32.9 12.3 3.41 (0.24) 94.5

5 Professional traumas 11.0 27.4 38.4 16.4 1.4 2.68 (0.22) 94.5

6 Everyday life traumas 13.7 27.4 32.9 16.4 4.1 2.68 (0.25) 94.5

7 Drinking of alcohol 27.4 20.5 23.3 15.1 8.2 2.54 (0.31) 94.5 8 Use of narcotics 49.3 6.8 6.8 11.0 20.5 2.43 (0.40) 94.5 9 Smoking 31.5 13.7 19.2 23.3 6.8 2.58 (0.32) 94.5 10 Radiation 2.7 11.0 19.2 34.2 27.4 3.77 (0.26) 94.5 11 AIDS 13.7 11.0 23.3 17.8 28.8 3.39 (0.33) 94.5 12 Medicine 2.7 12.3 26.0 38.4 15.1 3.54 (0.24) 94.5 13 Lawlessness 12.3 15.1 26.0 28.8 12.3 3.14 (0.29) 94.5

14 Finance and economy 0.0 6.8 31.5 41.1 15.1 3.68 (0.20) 94.5

15 Air pollution 0.0 2.7 31.5 39.7 20.5 3.83 (0.19) 94.5

16 Water pollution 1.4 2.7 20.5 43.8 26.0 3.96 (0.20) 94.5

17 Foods pollution 1.4 2.7 19.2 46.6 24.7 3.96 (0.20) 94.5

(26)

NN Factors of danger Percentages of responses in a 5-point scale (from 1 - no

danger, to 5 - the highest danger Mean mark X (m) answers% of

1 2 3 4 5

1 Crimes of violence 5.9 11.8 32.4 22.1 27.9 3.54 (0.28) 100

2 Military conflicts 11.8 16.2 22.1 19.1 30.9 3.4i (0.33) 100

3 Nuclear bomb tests 2.9 8.8 26.5 23.5 38.2 3.85 (0.27) 100

4 Transport accidents 2.9 13.2 36.8 32.4 14.7 3.43 (0.24) 100

5 Professional traumas 19.1 27.9 35.3 11.8 5.9 2.57 (0.26) 100

6 Everyday life traumas 14.7 27.9 33.8 19.1 4.4 2.71 (0.26) 100

7 Drinking of alcohol 41.2 25.0 19.1 10.3 4.4 2.12 (0.28) 100 8 Use of narcotics 57.4 11.8 5.9 10.3 14.7 2.13 (0.37) 100 9 Smoking 29.4 19.1 25.0 19.1 7.4 2.56 (0.31) 100 10 Radiation 1.5 4.4 22.1 38.2 33.8 3.99 (0.22) 100 11 AIDS 29.4 16.2 16.2 20.6 17.6 2.81 (0.36) 100 12 Medicine 4.4 10.3 26.5 38.2 19.1 3.58 (0.25) 100 13 Lawlessness 17.6 16.2 22.1 33.8 10.3 3.03 (0.30) 100

14 Finance and economy 2.9 7.4 11.8 41.2 36.8 4.01 (0.24) 100

15 Air pollution 0.0 5.9 16.2 52.9 25.0 3.97 (0.19) 100

16 Water pollution 0.0 4.4 14.7 51.5 29.4 4.06 (0.19) 100

17 Foods pollution 0.0 2.9 13.2 55.9 27.9 4.09 (0.17) 100

Table 16 Judgements of different factors of danger in group 2.

NN Factors of danger Percentages of responses in a 5-point scale (from 1 –

no danger, to 5 – the highest danger) Mean mark X _(m) answer% of s

1 2 3 4 5

2 Military conflicts 3.8 6.7 16.3 40.4 30.8 3.89 (0.20) 98

15 air pollution 0.0 1.9 10.6 62.5 25.0 4.11 (0.13) 100

16 Water pollution 0.0 0.0 11.5 58.7 29.8 4.18 (0.12) 100

17 Foods pollution 0.0 1.9 11.5 60.6 26.0 4.11 (0.13) 100

(27)

Group 5. Students, 1 year, St. Petersburg (tables 19, 22)

The respondents of this group estimated the danger of ecological fac-tors higher then the danger of other facfac-tors and rather higher then the groups 1, 2, 3, 4 did. But the estimates of danger of the radiation and nuclear tests were lower, then groups 2, 3, 4 had. The part of respond-ents with highest marks of danger of radiation and nuclear tests were 40,8% and 46,6%. The danger of social factors were estimated by St. Petersburg students rather lower then the teachers from two cities. The group 5 estimated the danger of habitual factors higher then groups 1, 2, 3, 4 did.

Group 6. Journalists, Murmansk (tables 20, 22)

The highest mark of danger received the economic difficulties in this group. Journalists estimated the danger of ecological factors rather higher then the danger of other factors, excluding economics. The esti-mates of danger of all factors were rather lower in general, then the estimates in groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Only 10,7% of respondents have the highest marks – 5 balls – for danger of nuclear tests. It is marked differ-ence of estimates of danger of this factor with the estimates of groups 1–5.

Group 7. Professionals (tables 21, 22)

The tendency of danger marks of various factors in this group quite differs from ones in other groups of respondents. The highest marks of

NN Factors of danger Percentages of responses in a 5-point scale (from 1 – no danger, to 5 – the highest danger)

Mean mark X (m) % of answers 1 2 3 4 5 1 Crimes of violence 1.6 3.2 17.7 45.2 32.3 4.03 (0.22) 100 2 Military conflicts 1.6 1.6 21.0 32.3 40.3 4.12 (0.23) 96.8

3 Nuclear bomb tests 0.0 1.6 12.9 33.9 50.0 4.34 (0.19) 98.4

4 Transport accidents 0.0 3.2 22.6 58.1 11.3 3.81 (0.17) 95.2

5 Professional traumas 8.1 12.9 40.3 29.0 4.8 3.10 (0.25) 95.1

6 Everyday life traumas 4.8 12.9 43.5 32.3 1.6 3.14 (0.22) 95.1

7 Drinking of alcohol 32.3 19.4 12.9 14.5 12.9 2.53 (0.38) 92 8 Use of narcotics 35.5 16.1 11.3 12.9 17.7 2.59 (0.40) 93.5 9 Smoking 27.4 14.5 16.1 16.1 17.7 2.81 (0.39) 91.8 10 Radiation 3.2 1.6 16.1 43.5 29.0 4.00 (0.24) 93.4 11 AIDS 14.5 11.3 25.8 21.0 21.0 3.24 (0.35) 93.6 12 Medicine 4.8 3.2 25.8 43.5 17.7 3.69 (0.25) 95 13 Lawlessness 1.6 8.1 24.2 33.9 27.4 3.81 (0.26) 95.2

14 Finance and economy 1.6 6.5 19.4 45.2 24.2 3.87 (0.24) 96.9

15 Air pollution 1.6 3.2 4.8 45.2 41.9 4.27 (0.21) 96.7

16 Water pollution 1.6 1.6 6.5 37.1 51.6 4.38 (0.21) 98.4

17 Foods pollution 1.6 1.6 9.7 33.9 51.6 4.34 (0.21) 98.4

(28)

danger belonged to the social factor – crimes of violence, medicine lack, lawlessness and economical difficulties. The next place were occupied with the danger of ecological factors – pollution (non radio-active) of water, foods, air. The next place in the scale of danger is

NN Factors of danger Percentages of responses in a 5-point scale (from 1 – no

danger, to 5 – the highest danger) Mean mark X (m) answers% of

1 2 3 4 5

15 Air pollution 1.0 2.9 7.8 45.6 42.7 4.26 (0.16) 100

16 Water pollution 0.0 2.9 6.8 35.0 55.3 4.43 (0.14) 100

17 Foods pollution 0.0 2.9 6.8 34.0 56.3 4.44 (0.14) 100

Table 19 Judgements of different factors by group 5.

NN Factors of danger Percentages of responses in a 5-point scale (from 1 – no

1 2 3 4 5

15 Air pollution 0.0 3.6 28.6 53.6 14.3 3.79 (0.19) 100

16 Water pollution 3.6 1.8 25.0 48.2 21.4 3.82 (0.24) 100

17 Foods pollution 0.0 3.6 28.6 50.0 17.9 3.82 (0.20) 100

(29)

occupied with radiation and nuclear tests which are being well know factors for this group of respondents. The estimates of these factors danger were quite lower ones in all other groups. The habitual factors are being at the last place in the scale of dangers. The professionals esti-mated such factors like alcohol and drugs very low. Obviously it is connected with formulation of question – danger for your and your family health. Professionals are being in firm belief about safety of this widely dispersed factors in society for their children.

Short Conclusion

1. All groups of respondents have given the lowest marks for danger for health of themselves and their families to the habitual factors – alcohol, work and home traumas etc. were a little bit danger factors; average marks were 2.12–3.14 balls. Astonishing fact was that 49,3% of respondents have given lowest estimates to drugs – in spite of wide spreading of this very danger factor last years. Traffic accidents were estimated rather higher; average marks were 3,34–3.83 balls. 2. The highest marks of danger have been put for ecological pollution

of environment and meal by all groups of respondents; average marks were 3.52–4.44 balls. The professionals and journalists have given lower danger estimates then others for this danger factor. 3. The respondents of groups 1,2,3,4,5, have estimated the danger of

radiation and nuclear bomb tests similar to ecological pollution. The journalists and specialists have estimated both radiation dan-gers significantly lower then other respondents.

NN Factors of danger Percentages of responses in a 5-point scale (from 1 – no danger, to 5 – the highest danger)

Mean mark X

(m) answers% of

1 2 3 4 5

1 Crimes of violence 0 1.8 16.7 64.8 16.7 3.96 (1.05) 100

4 Transport accidents 0 9.3 40.7 44.4 5.6 3.37 (0.57) 100

7 Drinking of alcohol 27.8 33.3 24.1 18.5 3.6 2.50 (0.72) 100 8 Use of narcotics 50.0 5.6 7.4 16.7 20.3 2.52 (0.72) 100 9 Smoking 31.4 13.0 26.0 24.0 5.6 2.59 (0.75) 100 10 Radiation 9.3 9.3 40.7 22.3 18.5 3.30 (0.51) 100 11 AIDS 18.5 14.8 37.0 18.5 11.2 2.89 (0.42) 100 12 Medicine 0 7.4 13.0 55.6 24.0 3.96 (0.90) 100 13 Lawlessness 1.8 3.7 16.7 48.2 29.6 4.00 (0.75) 100

14 Finance and economy 0 1.8 29.6 53.8 14.8 3.81 (0,87) 100

15 Air pollution 3.7 14.8 22.2 44.5 14.8 3.52 (0.66) 100

16 Water pollution 3.7 16.7 14.8 40.7 24.2 3.74 (0.60) 100

17 Foods pollution 0 14.8 24.1 35.2 25.9 3.72 (0.62) 100

(30)

4. The danger for health of social factors (lawlessness, crimes, eco-nomic et oth.) have occupied the middle place – between ecological and habitual factors for all groups, excluding journalists and special-ists. Journalists and specialists have estimated the danger for health of social factors higher then other danger factors.

5. The estimates of danger factors in balls not always coincided with the ranking of these factors.

Danger for other persons (tables 23 – 31)

Question 2.3: “In what degree is the radiation affect danger for the listed group of persons?” in 5 ball scale: from 1 – not dangerous till 5- very dangerous.

Group 1. Students, I year, Murmansk (tables 23, 30, 31)

60.3% of respondents of this group of respondents have given the highest marks of radiation danger to the population of contaminated areas, 42,5% – to person, working with radiation, and 31,5% to their (future!) children. The lower marks for this danger factor belonged to themselves.

NN Factors of danger Mean mark X (m) in groups

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Crimes of violence 3.41 (0.25) 3.54 (0.28) 3.69 (0.21) 4.03 (0.22) 3.84 (0.17) 3.18 (0.21) 3.96 (1.05) 2 Military conflicts 3.32 (0.28) 3.41 (0.33) 3.89 (0.20) 4.12 (0.23) 3.56 (0.23) 3.32 (0.25) 3.44 (0.18) 3 Nuclear bomb tests 3.83 (0.27) 3.85 (0.27) 4.14 (0.20) 4.34 (0.19) 3.91 (0.25) 3.36 (0.26) 3.02 (0.57) 4 Transport acci-dents 3.41 (0.24) 3.43 (0.24) 3.50 (0.19) 3.81 (0.17) 3.83 (0.17) 3.36 (0.21) 3.37 (0.57) 5 Professional trau-mas 2.68 (0.22) 2.57 (0.26) 2.85 (0.21) 3.10 (0.25) 3.09 (0.21) 2.63 (0.26) 2.70 (0.72) 6 Everyday life

trau-mas 2.68 (0.25) 2.71 (0.26) 2.92 (0.20) 3.14 (0.22) 3.17 (0.18) 2.86 (0.24) 2.70 (0.81) 7 Drinking of alco-hol 2.54 (0.31) 2.12 (0.28) 2.47 (0.27) 2.53 (0.38) 2.83 (0.24) 2.38 (0.25) 2.50 (0.72) 8 Use of narcotics 2.43 (0.40) 2.13 (0.37) 2.75 (0.34) 2.59 (0.40) 3.07 (0.34) 2.54 (0.38) 2.52 (0.72) 9 Smoking 2.58 (0.32) 2.56 (0.31) 2.72 (0.26) 2.81 (0.39) 3.01 (0.26) 2.93 (0.29) 2.59 (0.75) 10 Radiation 3.77 (0.26) 3.99 (0.22) 4.20 (0.16) 4.00 (0.24) 3.78 (0.25) 3.59 (0.23) 3.30 (0.51) 11 AIDS 3.39 (0.33) 2.81 (0.36) 3.16 (0.29) 3.24 (0.35) 3.78 (0.26) 2.93 (0.30) 2.89 (0.42) 12 Medicine 3.54 (0.24) 3.58 (0.25) 3.86 (0.17) 3.69 (0.25) 4.03 (0.18) 3.32 (0.27) 3.96 (0.90) 13 Lawlessness 3.14 (0.29) 3.03 (0.30) 3.81 (0.21) 3.81 (0.26) 3.47 (0.20) 3.43 (0.24) 4.00 (0.75) 14 Finance and

econ-omy

3.68 (0.20) 4.01 (0.24) 4.16 (0.15) 3.87 (0.24) 3.65 (0.15) 3.96 (0.22) 3.81 (0,87) 15 Air pollution 3.83 (0.19) 3.97 (0.19) 4.11 (0.13) 4.27 (0.21) 4.26 (0.16) 3.79 (0.19) 3.52 (0.66) 16 Water pollution 3.96 (0.20) 4.06 (0.19) 4.18 (0.12) 4.38 (0.21) 4.43 (0.14) 3.82 (0.24) 3.74 (0.60) 17 Foods pollution 3.96 (0.20) 4.09 (0.17) 4.11 (0.13) 4.34 (0.21) 4.44 (0.14) 3.82 (0.20) 3.72 (0.62)

(31)

Group 2. Students, IV year, Murmansk (table 24, 30, 31)

The part of this group respondents with highest marks for radiation danger was bigher then in group 1; 76,5% of elder students have given 5 balls for radiation danger to population of contaminated area; 67,7% respondents – to professionals and 36,8% – to future respondents’ chil-dren. The mean values for two of these contingents were being rather higher also – 4,72 and 4,62 balls.

Group 3. Teachers, Murmansk (tables 25, 30, 31)

The mean values for radiation danger for all contingents are higher in this group then in two students groups of Murmansk. The highest val-ues of marks – 5 balls – have been given:

1. to population of contaminated areas (76,0% of respondents, mean value 4,78),

2. to professionals (70,2% of respondents, mean value 4,67) 3. to children (39,4% respondents, mean value 4,06).

Groups of population and personalities

Percentages of responses in a 5-point scale (from 1 –

no danger, to 5 – the highest danger) Mean mark X (m) answers% of

1 2 3 4 5

For myself 2.7 13.7 35.6 30.1 8.4 3.30 (0.23) 90.5

For my children 1.4 4.1 11.0 42.5 31.5 4.09 (0.21) 90.5

For personal, working with radiation

1.4 0.0 5.5 41.1 42.5 4.36 (0.18) 90.5

For population of areas, con-taminated with nuclides

0.0 0.0 1.4 28.8 60.3 4.65 (0.12) 90.5

For population in the neigh-borhood of my home

0.0 8.2 34.2 35.6 12.5 3.58 (0.20) 90.5

For population of our coun-try

0.0 2.7 30.1 39.8 17.9 3.80 (0.19) 90.5

Table 23 Judgement of radiation danger for various groups of population and personalities in group 1.

Groups of population and

personalities Percentages of responses in a 5-point scale (from 1 – no danger, to 5 – the highest danger) Mean mark X (m) answers% of

1 2 3 4 5

For myself 2.9 19.1 29.4 27.9 20.7 3.44 (0.26) 100

For my children 16.2 5.9 11.8 27.9 36.8 3.64 (0.35) 98.6

0.0 1.5 2.9 27.9 67.7 4.62 (0.15) 100

1.5 0.0 0.0 22.0 76.5 4.72 (0.15) 100

For population in the neigh-borhood of my home

0.0 5.9 23.5 45.6 25.0 3.90 (0.20) 100

For population of our coun-try

1.5 1.5 17.6 51.5 27.9 4.03 (0.19) 100

Table 24 Judgement of radiation danger for various groups of population and personalities by group 2.

(32)

Group 4. Teachers, St. Petersburg (tables 26, 30, 31)

The tendency of marks are the same like in group 4 – teachers from Murmansk. The mean values are very similar for these two groups, although rather lower in group 4. The parts of respondents who have given highest marks of radiation danger for “critical” groups of persons – population of contaminated areas, professional and own children were being lower then in group 4–72,6%; 53,2%; 27,4% accordingly.

Group 5. Students, I year, St. Petersburg (tables 27, 30, 31)

The all mean marks of radiation danger to various groups of persons in this group of respondents are very close to ones in group 1,2,3.4. The parts of this group respondents who have given highest marks to

“crit-Groups of population and

personalities Percentages of responses in a 5-point scale (from 1 – no danger, to 5 – the highest danger) Mean mark X (m) amswers% of

1 2 3 4 5

For myself 1.0 4.8 30.8 38.4 25.0 3.82 (0.17) 100.

For my children 1.9 3.8 20.2 29.8 39.4 4.06 (0.19) 95.1

1.0 0.0 2.9 22.1 70.2 4.67 (0.12) 96.2

For population of areas, contaminated with nuclides

0.0 0.0 1.0 19.2 76.0 4.78 (0.09) 96.2

For population in the neighborhood of my home

0.0 2.9 19.2 44.2 33.7 4.09 (0.15) 100

For population of our country

0.0 0.0 19.2 43.3 34.6 4.16 (0.14) 97.1

Percentages of responses in a 5-point scale (from 1 – no

danger, to 5 – the highest danger) Mean mark X (m) % of answers

1 2 3 4 5

For myself 1.6 9.7 29.0 37.1 17.7 3.63 (0.25) 95.1

For my children 0.0 4.8 17.7 45.2 27.4 4.00 (0.21) 95.1

1.6 0.0 1.6 38.7 53.2 4.49 (0.18) 95.1

0.0 0.0 0.0 22.6 72.6 4.76 (0.11) 95.2

0.0 6.5 27.4 45.2 16.1 3.75 (0.21) 95.2

0.0 3.2 6.5 59.7 25.8 4.14 (0.17) 95.2

(33)

ical” group, were being 82,5%; for population at contaminated areas – 63,1% and for working persons – 35,0% accordingly.

Group 6. Journalists, Murmansk (table 28, 30, 31)

The respondents of this group evaluated the radiation danger for all contingents lower in a marked degree then groups 1–5 of respondents. Only 53,6% of questioned journalists have given the highest marks of radiation danger for population at contaminated areas, 32,1% – for professionals and 17,9% – for their children. Mean values for this group in balls have been 4,39; 3,93; 2,98.

Group 7. Professionals, (tables 29, 30, 31)

The respondents of this group have given mean marks of radiation danger very close to marks of journalists. One exception was con-nected with mark of radiation danger for “myself”: it was higher then

1 2 3 4 5

For myself 6.8 6.8 38.8 29.1 18.5 3.46 (0.21) 100

For my children 7.8 2.9 26.2 33.0 30.1 3.75 (0.22) 100

0.0 1.9 1.0 34.0 63.1 4.58 (0.12) 100

0.0 0.0 1.9 15.6 82.5 4.81 (0.09) 100

2.9 11.7 36.9 34.0 14.5 3.46 (0.19) 100

0.0 1.0 16.5 47.5 35.0 4.17 (0.14) 100

1 2 3 4 5

For myself 8.9 30.4 32.1 19.7 8.9 2.89 (0.29) 100

For my children 19.6 19.6 21.4 21.5 17.9 2.98 (0.37) 100

0.0 5.4 28.6 33.9 32.1 3.93 (0.24) 100

0.0 0.0 14.3 32.1 53.6 4.39 (0.19) 100

1.8 7.1 28.6 41.1 21.4 3.73 (0.25) 100

3.6 7.1 41.1 30.4 17.8 3.52 (0.26) 100

(34)

marks of journalists and of respondents groups 1, 2, 4, 5–3,63. But this mark is lower then their mark of radiation danger for population at contaminated areas – 4,26 and for “personal, working with radiation” – e.g. professionals too! – 3,76. The professionals have estimated the radiation danger for “population in the neighborhood of my home” much lower then all other respondents groups have done – 2,80. Short Summary (tables 30, 31)

1. All mean values are presented in table 30 and the ranks of different group of population – in table 31. The estimates of all respondents groups have had common tendencies: the most degree of danger has been given to population at the contaminated areas and the second place – for professionals.

2. The respondents of 2, 3, 4, 5 groups have put the all country popu-lation at the third place among the other contingents in according the radiation danger. The groups 1, 6, 7 have estimated the danger for all population of country rather lower: they have given the 4th

place of danger for this group of persons.

3. All respondents have estimated radiation danger for themselves very low – except of professionals who have placed themselves at the third place – after population at the contaminated areas and profes-sionals in general.

4. The journalists have given 3rd rank of danger to the population at areas of their living but at the same time they considered that for themselves and for their children this danger was very low. This position is rather inconsistent.

The sources of radiation danger (table 32, 33)

Question 2.4. Which sources of radioactive contamination do in area of you inhabitance exist?

This question has been absent in questionnaires for groups 5 and 7.

Groups of population and per-sonalities

Percentages of responses in a 5-point scale (from 1 –

no danger, to 5 – the highest danger) Mean mark X (m) answers% of

1 2 3 4 5

For myself 7.4 29.6 42.6 16.7 3.7 3.63+0.63 100

For my children 3.7 27.7 40.7 18.5 9.3 3.02+0.60 100

0 3.7 31.5 50.0 14.8 3.76+0.81 100

1.8 9.3 50.0 38.9 4.26+0.81 100

For population in the neighbor-hood of my home

13.0 20.3 42.6 22.2 1.8 2.80+0.66 100

For population of our country 3.7 16.7 42.6 29.6 7.4 3.20+0.42 100

(35)

Group 1. Students, 1 year, Murmansk

86,3% of this group respondents indicated the ships with nuclear fuel as the main local source of radioactive contamination. 75% of respond-ents think that radioactive contamination of Barrespond-ents Sea and Nuclear Power Station (NPS) in Polarnye Zori are being such sources. 2/3 of respondents showed the Radioactive Waste Disposal (RWD) as a source of their living area.

The other sources which have been indicate by this group of re-spondents were: radon (17 persons), building materials (2 persons), nu-clear wastes, disposal of nunu-clear submarines mining (town Revda), X-ray departments in hospitals, transport of nuclear fuel.

Mean value (balls) rating by respondents groups Mur-mansk, 1-st year students Mur-mansk, last year students Mur-mansk, school teachers St.Peters-burg, school teachers St.Peters-burg, 1-st year stu-dents Journalists Specialists For myself 3.30±0.23 3.44±0.26 3.82±0.17 3.63±0.25 3.46±0.21 2.89±0.29 3.63±0.63 For my children 4.09±0.21 3.64±0.35 4.06±0.19 4.00±0.21 3.75±0.22 2.98±0.37 3.02±0.60 For personal, working with

radiation

4.36±0.18 4.62±0.15 4.67±0.12 4.49±0.18 4.59±0.12 3.93±0.24 3.76±0.81 For population of areas,

contaminated with nuclides

4.65±0.12 4.72±0.15 4.78±0.09 4.76±0.11 4.81±0.09 4.39±0.19 4.26±0.81 For population in the

neigh-borhood of my home

3.58±0.20 3.90±0.20 4.09±0.15 3.75±0.21 3.46±0.19 3.73±0.25 2.80±0.66 For population of our

coun-try

3.80±0.19 4.03±0.19 4.16±0.14 4.14±0.17 4.17±0.14 3.52±0.26 3.20±0.42

Table 30 Radiation danger for various groups of population and personalities in all groups of respondents. Danger rate, 1 place– more danger Group of respondents Murman, 1-st year 1- stu-dents Murman, last year stu-dents Murman, school teach-ers St.Peters-burg, school teachers St.Peters-burg, 1-st year students Journalists Specialists 1 Radiation contam. Radiation contam. Radiation contam. Radiation contam. Radiation contam. Radiation contam. Radiation contam. 2 Professionals Professionals Professionals Professionals Professionals Professionals Professionals 3 For my

chil-dren

All country All country All country All country Place of my inhabit.

For myself 4 All country Place of my

inhabit. Place of my inhabit. For my chil-dren For my chil-dren

All country All country 5 Place of my inhabit. For my chil-dren For my chil-dren Place of my inhabit. For myself and my inhabitance place For my chil-dren For my chil-dren

6 For myself For myself For myself For myself For myself Place of my

inhabit.

(36)

Group 2. Students, IV year, Murmansk

The part of this group respondents which indicated all listed sources of radioactive contamination, was more then one in group 1: 95,6% of respondents have shown the ships with nuclear fuel as a main source of local radioactive contamination. The NPS (85,3% of respondents), RWD (82,4%) and contamination of Barents sea (80,9%) occupied the next places of contamination.

This group of respondents added the trains with radioactive waste (1 person) and accidents with submarines (1 person) – e.g. the same source, which have been listed in questionnaire.

Group 3. Teachers, Murmansk

Only 71,2% of this group respondents indicated the ships and 2/3 of respondents indicated RWD as the source of local radioactive contam-ination. The NPS and contamination of Barentz sea were shown as the sources of local contamination a little bit more then half of respond-ents. 18,3% (17 persons) think there are others sources of contamina-tion: minings, industrial nuclear explosions in Chibin (it’s the rumor only), radon, building materials (beton walls), burning of waste (plant), unknown sources, foodstuffs from Belarus.

Group 4. Teachers, St. Petersburg

The main source of local radioactive contamination was being NPS near St.Petersburg for this respondent group – 71% of answers. 43,5% of respondents indicated the RWD and only less part of respondents mentioned the ships and Barentz sea. Evidently these two last sources do not play important role in radioactive contamination St. Petersburg area. The other indicated sources were: rain and snow, natural radia-tion, research reactors, industrial, communal and medical wastes, building materials.

Group 6. Journalists, Murmansk

Respondents of this group consider the ships and NPS as the main sources of local radioactive contamination. Only a little bit more then one half of respondents indicated contamination of Barentz sea and RWD as the possible sources of local contamination. Only two per-sons indicated other radiation sources – natural radiation and storing of waste reactors of submarines.

Short Summary

In general the answers of all respondents’ groups testify theirs have had good information about sources of radioactive contamination. So, all Murmansk respondents have indicated the ships with nuclear fuel in 71,2–95,6% of answers and this source has occupied the first place in the list of such sources.

The NPS is the main source of local radioactive contamination for teachers in St. Petersburg. Only journalists and students, IV year, in

(37)

Murmansk consider NPS as a important source of local contamination (in 74–85% answers); the teachers in Murmansk indicated this source in 56.7% of answers.

Part 3. Radioecological Knowledge

Self-appraisal of radio-ecological Knowledge (table 34)

Question 4.1: “What is your opinion about your knowledge in radioecology?”

The sources of radioactive contamination Percentages of responses in groups NN

1 2 3 4 6

nps 74.0 85.3 56.7 71.0 80.4

Ships with nuclear fuel 86.3 95.6 71.2 21.0 94.6

Radioactive contamination of Barents Sea 75.3 80.9 58.7 12.9 55.4

Radioactive waste disposal 66.7 82.4 66.3 43.5 58.9

Other sources 28.8 2.9 18.3 24.2 3.6

Table 32 The respondent’s knowledge of the sources of radioactive contamination in area of inhabitance. Danger, 1 place– more danger Group of respondents Murman, 1-st year students Murman, IV year students

Murman, teachers St.Petersburg, school teachers

Journalists

1 Ships Ships Ships _nps Ships

2 Nuclear wastes _nps Nuclear wastes Nuclear wastes _nps

3 R/a contamin of Barents Sea

Nuclear wastes R/a contamin of Barents Sea

Other Nuclear wastes

4 _nps R/a contamin of

Barents Sea nps

Ships R/a contamin of

Barents Sea

5 Other Other Other R/a contamin of

Barents Sea

Other

Table 33 Rating of the sources of radioactive contamination in area of inhabitance, scheme.

Answers Percentages of responses in groups NN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Completly ignorant 0.0 4.4 0.0 3.2 5.8 7.1 1.8

Insufficient knowledge 65.8 57.4 51.0 59.7 65.0 50.0 16.7

Sufficient knowledge 27.4 29.4 43.3 25.8 14.6 30.4 63.0

Very good knowledge 1.4 1.5 3.8 4.8 0.0 5.4 16.7

It’s difficult to answer 4.1 7.4 1.9 6.5 14.6 7.1 1.9

(38)

All three groups of students estimated their knowledge of radioecology rather low: 0,0–1,5% of these groups had appraisal “very good knowl-edge”. The appraisal “sufficient knowledge” have been put by about 28% of the students from Murmansk and by ~15% of the students from St. Petersburg. So 60–65% of student respondents considered their radioecological knowledge “insufficient”.

The teachers estimated their knowledge very close to students. The teachers from St. Petersburg estimated their knowledge rather lower then their Murmansk colleagues.

The journalists from Murmansk estimated their radioecological knowledge very close to the appraisals of teachers from Murmansk, but little bit higher. 63% professionals considered their knowledge as suffi-cient, but only 16,7% estimated their knowledge very good sufficient.

These results show the necessity of special education for all groups of our respondents, who are connected with radioecological problem very tightly, including the professionals.

The devices which are being the sources of radiation in everyday life (table 35)

Question 3.2: “Indicate, please, the devices which are being the sources of ionizing radiation”

Strictly speaking only X-ray machine is only one proper source of ion-izing radiation (IR) amongst of all enumerated devices in the question-naire. But only 66,1% of journalists, 76,7% of 1 year students and St. Petersburg’ teachers, and ~ 84% of elder students and teachers from Murmansk indicated this device as a source of ionizing radiation. It was surprisingly that only ~ 91% of the professionals have marked this device.

The next more “popular” sources of ionizing radiation were the TV-sets and the computer monitor including the professionals. Such an an-swer could give only those persons who were not specialist in matter of radiation and did not have clear understanding of the difference be-tween proper sources of ionizing radiation and the devices which have got so called “secondary” or “parasitic” ionizing radiation. Evidently

Devices Percentages of responses in groups NN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

X-ray machine 76.7 83.8 84.6 71.0 73.8 66.1 90.7

Ultrasound diagnostic devices 16.4 17.6 26.9 17.7 16.5 5.4 13.0

High voltage electronic power line

21.9 14.7 35.6 16.1 11.7 17.9 14.8

Fluorescent daylight lamps 9.6 1.5 22.1 16.1 3.9 5.4 16.7

Microwave oven 45.2 50.0 53.8 37.1 29.1 35.7 16.7

TV-set 60.3 48.5 80.8 53.2 43.7 35.7 66.7

Computer monitor 58.9 64.7 76.0 59.7 61.2 51.8 61.1

It’s difficult to say 6.8 7.4 2.9 11.3 11.7 21.4 1.9

(39)

our respondents have heard about such kind of radiation. Such high frequency of putting out these devices might be also connected with wide usage of these devices in everyday life – at home and at work.

The microwave oven was marked as IR source by 30–50% of “non-professional” respondents; but even 16% of specialists marked it IR source also. The reason of this mistake is clear as microwave oven is the source of radiation, but non-ionising radiation.

The most high frequency of mistakes in the choice of proper sources of ionizing radiation among listed devices have been in group of teach-ers from Murmansk which considered their radiation ecology knowl-edge as “sufficient” and “very good” in 47% answers. These results showed not only “insufficient knowledge” in this question but also the high level of anxiety of wide usage of rather new devices with not suffi-ciently clear mechanism of these devices action.

Detection of the ionizing radiation (table 36)

Question 3.3: “What is your opinion how one could detect the ionizing radiation?”

Majority of professionals (85.2% of this group) and 46,6–63,3% of other respondents have answered that “it is impossible to detect the ionizing radiation without special units”. But about 13–18% of profes-sionals and big parts of other groups of respondents pointed at not instrumental but other possibilities to detect ionizing radiation. The most “favorite” method for detection radiation was being the altera-tion of feeling – 40–58% of respondents non-specialists and 13% of professionals have put this “method”.

The big part of students, teachers and journalists (18–38%) consid-ered that the status of plants and domestic animals behavior can detect the ionizing radiation like the population involved in Chernobyl disas-ter did it. The journalists proved to be more critical persons that the others: 21,7% of them answered “it is hard to say”. The share of such persons in other respondents group was less – 4,4–11,7%.

The answers of this question also proved a poor knowledge of radi-ation for the big part of respondents including professionals.

Method of detection Percentages of responses in groups NN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

By shining 12.3 16.2 15.4 16.1 11.7 19.6 13.0

By alteration of feeling 41.1 50.0 58.7 41.9 40.8 32.1 13.0

By animal behaviour 20.5 22.1 26.9 25.8 28.2 19.6 18.8

By reaction of plants 38.4 17.6 33.7 37.1 35.0 21.4 13.0

It’s impossible without special devices

63.3 60.3 60.6 54.8 46.6 55.4 85.2

It’s quite imposible 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 –

It’s hard to say 6.8 4.4 5.8 6.5 11.7 21.4 1.9

Social Scientific Nuclear Waste Risk Assessment in the Barents Region

Social Scientific Nuclear Waste Risk

Assessment in the Barents Region

Guenrietta V. Arkhanguelskaia

Irina A. Zykova

St. Petersburg Institute of Radiation Hygiene,

Russian Federation

Umeå University

cerum,

Centre for Regional

Science

Social Scientific Nuclear Waste

Risk Assessment in the Barents

Region

Guenrietta V. Arkhanguelskaia

Irina A. Zykova

St. Petersburg Institute of Radiation Hygiene,

Russian Federation

Table of Contents

The Project “Nuclear Problems, Risk

Perceptions of, and Societal Responses to,

Nuclear Waste in the Barents Region”

- an Acknowledgement

A. The Purpose and Objectives of Study

B. The Structure of the Report

C. Scientific Results of Study

I.Questioning study

Purpose of study

Methods

Part 1. “Let us meet”

Part 2. The assessments of danger

Part 3. Radioecological Knowledge